Title

Authors

Abstract

This Article seeks to transcend the debate over the correctness and legitimacy of the percuriam opinion that spoke for the five-member majority in Bush v. Gore. For better or worse, that decision is on the books. The opinion's reasoning must stand or fall on its merits, not on the motivations of the Justices who wrote or subscribed to it. Accordingly, this Article considers whether a conscientious judge, reasoning in good faith, could have reached the same conclusion as did the Bush v. Gore majority. It answers that question tentatively in the affirmative: there is a respectable argument for the result, but reasonable people could legitimately disagree with every aspect of the majority's analysis.